Case 6017903/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Munashe Chako v Emmaculate Care Services Ltd Heard: in Leeds — 2026
- Case reference
- 6017903/2025
- Decision date
- 18 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Munashe Chako
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years. On that basis, the ordinary unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the claims for unfair dismissal under sections 103A, 100 and 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the detriment claim under section 48, and the wrongful dismissal claim. It found that the respondent had not failed to comply with its obligations to provide a written statement of employment particulars or statements of changes.
The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing. It does not set out remedy figures, named legal tests, or any lay panel members.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was employed for less than two years and the claim for ordinary unfair dismissal therefore fails and is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claim for unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is not well founded and is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim for unfair dismissal under section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is not well founded and is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim for unfair dismissal under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is not well founded and is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the claim for detriment under section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is not well founded and is dismissed. The specific statutory detriment basis is not set out in the written judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the wrongful dismissal claim fails and is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.